House Democrats? No, more like House Democrat. Plus, it needs to come from a legitimate news source, or it didn't happen. Faux News doesn't count.

So what do you consider a 'legitimate' news source then? All of them have a bias towards being liberal or conservative, so if that makes them illegitimate news sources you wont be allowed to believe any news. Or is it only ones with a liberal bias that are believable to you?

House Democrats? No, more like House Democrat. Plus, it needs to come from a legitimate news source, or it didn't happen. Faux News doesn't count.

I'm tired of this excuse. Fox News is a legitimate news source whether you like it, or hate it.

No, they're not. Legitimate news sources know who is a Democrat and who is a Republican during a scandal. You might as well be quoting the ONN (Onion News Network).

Hey, she may have said it. If she did, she's a dumbass. But until you get some independent verification, it didn't happen.

OK we'll play it your way -- we'll wait until this comes across AP and then we can address the issue you are dodging. Why Democrats want to socialize America and yet scream when people call them socialists.

House Democrats? No, more like House Democrat. Plus, it needs to come from a legitimate news source, or it didn't happen. Faux News doesn't count.

I'm tired of this excuse. Fox News is a legitimate news source whether you like it, or hate it.

No, they're not. Legitimate news sources know who is a Democrat and who is a Republican during a scandal. You might as well be quoting the ONN (Onion News Network).

Hey, she may have said it. If she did, she's a dumbass. But until you get some independent verification, it didn't happen.

OK we'll play it your way -- we'll wait until this comes across AP and then we can address the issue you are dodging. Why Democrats want to socialize America and yet scream when people call them socialists.

Again, even if you're right, you still aren't right. It's still Democrat (singular, not plural). If you want to make those generalizations, then all Republicans are closet homosexuals that take a wide stance in the bathroom.

Fuck it, nationalize it, I don't give a damn. I'm all for stuff that pisses off MSD.

That's cool - good links. So the woman is an idiot. Let's hope she doesn't get her way. The other one - the guy - is talking about the Government owning newly-built refineries (at least that's what I think he was saying), which may not be a horrible idea if we look at those as refineries to produce oil for the US military since it is an essential resource for the military. Private enterprise could probably do it better in an open bidding system, but with the sweetheart contracts the Bushies have been handing out to the not-so-lowest bidder, I'm more in favor of Government-owned refineries for the military than the backdoor contract handouts. Of course, I'd rather just have an open, non-politicized bidding system, but that's not going to happen from either party.

House Democrats? No, more like House Democrat. Plus, it needs to come from a legitimate news source, or it didn't happen. Faux News doesn't count.

I'm tired of this excuse. Fox News is a legitimate news source whether you like it, or hate it.

Fox is probably equally legitimate as any other cable news channel, which is not necessarily a compliment.

But your link kind of looks like a liveblog of a press conference. And the part that's made you angry is a paraphrase, not a quote. And it is by one person.

Quote

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

1115

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

So saying this is a House Democrats proposal is not exactly fair and accurate.

Or maybe it is. If your proposition is that a paraphrase of a quote from one member of a party = a proposal from that party, just let me know. I've got some Republican quotes I could paraphrase to indicate the official position of the House Republicans.

But your link kind of looks like a liveblog of a press conference. And the part that's made you angry is a paraphrase, not a quote. And it is by one person.

Who'd have thought?

edit:

After some more reading, I'm actually warming to the idea of government owned refineries. It turns out that the oil companies intentionally closed refineries in the 90s to drive prices up.

Chevron: "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins."

I can't say I agree with the government owning oil refineries. But I certainly don't consider this to be DRUDGE flashing red light story. If Obama comes out and says that he supports this idea, then we may have issues.

Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov

Yay for keeping the ban on offshore drilling. Nay on the government owning refineries.

I haven't yet thought this through, but while privatizing refineries may/may not be a bad idea, what about the government building and owning additional refineries to guarantee a certain supply level? Just pondering.

Oil makes the country run. It affects everything, and because of that, I'm not opposed to the idea of the government stepping in and regulating the process. Or at least discussing the pros and cons of it without completely dismissing it out of hand as socialism the second the idea comes up.

Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.

Yay for keeping the ban on offshore drilling. Nay on the government owning refineries.

I haven't yet thought this through, but while privatizing refineries may/may not be a bad idea, what about the government building and owning additional refineries to guarantee a certain supply level? Just pondering.

Would you want to gas your car with gas made by government employees at a government refinery?

Government is incapable of being efficient in running things, thats why I will never understand the love affair some people have with the government running things, health care, ect.

Because there are some things that need to be done, efficient or not.

I would have to strongly disagree that the government running health care is something that needs to be done, it will make the current problems with health care costs worse, not better.

It may make the costs worse, but it could make the service better for the government's citizens. Please note the "could". Benefits to the government could then include longer lived taxpayers as an example that wouldn't be included in your initial cost-benefit analysis.

Government is incapable of being efficient in running things, thats why I will never understand the love affair some people have with the government running things, health care, ect.

Ah, brettmcd, you've already lost this government health care argument before when I demonstrated that the VA has the best health care in the country. Not up to the standards of your usual cogent analysis.

Government is incapable of being efficient in running things, thats why I will never understand the love affair some people have with the government running things, health care, ect.

Ah, brettmcd, you've already lost this government health care argument before when I demonstrated that the VA has the best health care in the country. Not up to the standards of your usual cogent analysis.

You proved nothing there, I can trot out number how the fraud and waste in medicare and medicaid is worse then private care which would prove the points that I am making, but I tire of you ignoring any points you dont agree with because the person who made them happens to be a conservative.

Government is incapable of being efficient in running things, thats why I will never understand the love affair some people have with the government running things, health care, ect.

Ah, brettmcd, you've already lost this government health care argument before when I demonstrated that the VA has the best health care in the country. Not up to the standards of your usual cogent analysis.

You proved nothing there, I can trot out number how the fraud and waste in medicare and medicaid is worse then private care which would prove the points that I am making, but I tire of you ignoring any points you dont agree with because the person who made them happens to be a conservative.

You're a broken record, brettmcd. Let's try some direct quotes:

brettmcd: Government is incapable of being efficient in running things

CBS: In studies, including one by Harvard, and in six straight years of patient satisfaction surveys, the VA earned the highest health care quality rating in the country. It's also the least expensive. The VA is also a bargain for taxpayers, and not just because of the computers. Doctors are salaried employees, which saves on labor. Drugs are cheaper because of negotiated discounts. Even with its older population, VA care overall costs 30 percent less than the national average.

Government is incapable of being efficient in running things, thats why I will never understand the love affair some people have with the government running things, health care, ect.

Ah, brettmcd, you've already lost this government health care argument before when I demonstrated that the VA has the best health care in the country. Not up to the standards of your usual cogent analysis.

You proved nothing there, I can trot out number how the fraud and waste in medicare and medicaid is worse then private care which would prove the points that I am making, but I tire of you ignoring any points you dont agree with because the person who made them happens to be a conservative.

You're a broken record, brettmcd. Let's try some direct quotes:

brettmcd: Government is incapable of being efficient in running things

CBS: In studies, including one by Harvard, and in six straight years of patient satisfaction surveys, the VA earned the highest health care quality rating in the country. It's also the least expensive. The VA is also a bargain for taxpayers, and not just because of the computers. Doctors are salaried employees, which saves on labor. Drugs are cheaper because of negotiated discounts. Even with its older population, VA care overall costs 30 percent less than the national average.

I'm talking about the quality of care available to veterans, and the cost of that care.

The report cited by your USA Today link is about facilities repair - if you actually click through to the pdf linked there, you'll find that it's things like "stained ceiling tile" and "appearance of floor tiles," and "replace windows with moisture in between glass." There's a few pest control examples sprinkled in. The incidents at Walter Reed, famous for their particularly bad facilities, can be credited to the privatization of that hospital. Facilities do matter, but they're only one component.

Your second link says that the DOD handoff of medical records to the VA is flawed, not that the VA is dropping the ball in any consistent fashion. Certainly they're stretched resource-wise by the influx of wounded veterans from the war.

Your third link is just an anecdote in a letter to the editor.

In the end, your links don't disprove anything I've asserted - that the VA care is cost-effective, consistently ranked as the highest quality care by patients.

I'm talking about the quality of care available to veterans, and the cost of that care.

The report cited by your USA Today link is about facilities repair - if you actually click through to the pdf linked there, you'll find that it's things like "stained ceiling tile" and "appearance of floor tiles," and "replace windows with moisture in between glass." There's a few pest control examples sprinkled in. The incidents at Walter Reed, famous for their particularly bad facilities, can be credited to the privatization of that hospital. Facilities do matter, but they're only one component.

Your second link says that the DOD handoff of medical records to the VA is flawed, not that the VA is dropping the ball in any consistent fashion. Certainly they're stretched resource-wise by the influx of wounded veterans from the war.

Your third link is just an anecdote in a letter to the editor.

In the end, your links don't disprove anything I've asserted - that the VA care is cost-effective, consistently ranked as the highest quality care by patients.

But keep on keepin' on!

There is nothing constructive about a discussion when you use 'dearest' and 'ah, ____' and such to patronize and goad the other party.

There is nothing constructive about a discussion when you use 'dearest' and 'ah, ____' and such to patronize and goad the other party.

Oh, I see - I'm getting lectured on substance by a guy who attributes a quote from an individual to the entire Democratic party? A guy who repeatedly refused to acknowledge the hate speech on his side of the aisle, though deriding Jeremiah Wright for it? A guy who mispresented the budget plans of both candidates to match his pre-conceived notions? Keep your tips to yourself.

I'm talking about the quality of care available to veterans, and the cost of that care.

The report cited by your USA Today link is about facilities repair - if you actually click through to the pdf linked there, you'll find that it's things like "stained ceiling tile" and "appearance of floor tiles," and "replace windows with moisture in between glass." There's a few pest control examples sprinkled in. The incidents at Walter Reed, famous for their particularly bad facilities, can be credited to the privatization of that hospital. Facilities do matter, but they're only one component.

Your second link says that the DOD handoff of medical records to the VA is flawed, not that the VA is dropping the ball in any consistent fashion. Certainly they're stretched resource-wise by the influx of wounded veterans from the war.

Your third link is just an anecdote in a letter to the editor.

In the end, your links don't disprove anything I've asserted - that the VA care is cost-effective, consistently ranked as the highest quality care by patients.

But keep on keepin' on!

There is nothing constructive about a discussion when you use 'dearest' and 'ah, ____' and such to patronize and goad the other party.

Exactly, which is why im done with this discussion with someone like him. He wants to talk down to everyone, which makes dealing with his crap not worth my time.

Exactly, which is why im done with this discussion with someone like him. He wants to talk down to everyone, which makes dealing with his crap not worth my time.

This is an entirely typical tactic for the two of you.

brettmcd/msduncan: "Unfounded statement based on faulty logic and/or factual elisions! Democrats are evil/stupid/incompetent!"brendan: "Evidence-based assertions and link to relevant research information, with added snarky (and, yes, occasionally condescending) asides."brettmcd/msduncan: "Snark is unwarranted! I won't continue in this conversation any longer!"

The thin-skinned act does get you out of acknowledging the ineffectiveness of your VA-related links, brettmcd. I used to fool myself into taking the moral high ground and just responding to your misrepresentations with, y'know, more facts. It turns out that the two of you just ignore any actual evidence and make with the generalizations, so I might as well take the route that amuses me. Unlike you, brettmcd, I actually read the links that people provide - I read all three of the ones you posted. Hilariously, I don't think you read your links. msduncan has the same problem with half the stuff he posts from the Heritage foundation or Michelle Malkin, or whoever it is he reads that day.